Providing amnesty to lawbreaking corporations is a complete assault on the rule of law and on the basic fairness of our political system. When ordinary American citizens are accused of breaking the law, they are forced to go to court and, if the accusations are proven, they suffer the consequences. If the telecoms really did nothing wrong, they should prove that in court, like all Americans must do.

This is an important collaboration between civil rights groups, online advocacy groups, and bloggers, coming together to oppose illegal domestic spying and working to protect the civil liberties of all Americans.

Please join us.

Update: You can also call Reid’s office, ask him to respect the hold and join Dodd’s filibuster:

I have not been able to email my senator, Lindsay Graham on this issue this morning. I have always found his web site easily accessible on other issues. Also, when I tried to sign onto this letter, I could read it but not allowed to sign it. What is going on? I hate to think conspiracy theories, but.

Now get those groups to organize a national strike and publish a weekly ad in all the nations newspapers.

I believe that MoveOn, among other groups, is doing a good job
on taking out ads even to the extent of getting congress to act like idiots and there really is a nation wide demonstration happening this weekend. There are many, many fax, calling and letter writing programs going on and, yes, they are being effective. In short there is one hell of a lot being done buyt we are fighting a tough enemy (Pelosi, Reid Bush etal)

You know, I really think that the Republicans have some dirt on Pelosi and Reid. I think they’ve done a Scientology-style “fair game” campaign and dug up something they are using to bend Pelosi and Reid to their will.

Anyone want to bet they have pictures of them doing the nasty in the copy room or something?

“As one of your direct constituents, I demand that you do the right thing and not permit retroactive legislative indemnification of private enitities that have worked secretly in collaboration with the Bush administration to violate U.S. privacy laws as part of the so-called (and apparently all-encompassing) “war on terror.” If these companies have a potentially legitimate case for relief, let them make it in court — the proper venue. I will be watching your actions closely, sir.”

“I recognize the obvious threat a nuclear Iran poses to the region and beyond, and that we must stop Iran’s continued support for international terrorism.

“Unfortunately, the action taken by the Administration today comes in the context of escalating rhetoric and drumbeat to military action against Iran.

“I am deeply concerned that once again the President is opting for military action as a first resort.

“The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

“The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran.”

Thank you. It was a lot of work to pull this coalition together and a lot of the credit goes to Matt Stoller and Glenn Greenwald. It’s the first time we’ve tried to work with groups like this. I hope many others will follow.

I signed. I also left a note saying that if retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged illegal activities is a good idea for telecom companies, how about the same for kids like my son – accused of a crime but not tried yet. If they don’t need to know the extent of telecom companies’ illegal activities – then they don’t need to know what my did or didn’t do either. Retroactive immunity for one – retroactive immunity for all – what’s wrong with that picture?

And if the Beltway (D) leadership shrugs it off, as is their nature, maybe the “civil rights groups, online advocacy groups, and bloggers”
could consider coming together to discuss forming a genuine opposition party, rather than continuing the futile struggle to turn the Donkey into something it is not?

Signed it proudly, for what it is worth, I feel I am standing in the footprints of the people who penned our constitution, doing the right thing.
Thank you for the honor because that is how I view it, an honor.

“I recognize the obvious threat a nuclear Iran poses to the region and beyond, and that we must stop Iran’s continued support for international terrorism.

“Unfortunately, the action taken by the Administration today comes in the context of escalating rhetoric and drumbeat to military action against Iran.

“I am deeply concerned that once again the President is opting for military action as a first resort.

“The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

“The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran.”

This is just awful. Dodd shows once again that he has the right stuff.

But hope is beginning to fade. Have started preparing for the worst. *sigh*

I’m all for it as long as we allow the telecoms to plea bargain. Why not hold them hostage and issue demands in exchange for concessions?
Are we passing up a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really twist their nuts and make them more accountable to consumers?

This issue should now be under the purview of the courts. What you are being asked to do is to usurp the third branch of government’s power by taking their decision onto yourselves. Let the President do his own dirty work if he so desires. He can either use his plenary pardon power or whatever power it is that allows him to grant this immunity.

There is no reason for the Congress to grant immunity retroactively to companies that performed unconstitutional acts with citizens personal information without the citizens knowledge or consent. Keep in mind, the corporations went into this with legal representation and their eyes wide open, whereas the citizens whose information was obtained were kept in the dark. They had no control or even an inkling of what was happening. You should not stoop to treating American citizens like we treated the American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII.

If you have any honor, sir, you will honor Chris Dodd’s hold, and if necessary, you will help in a filibuster. If necessary, you should explain to your colleagues that many constituents deem this matter a conflict of interests for them, since the telecom companies are known to be some of your biggest campaign donors. You should not capitulate once again to the President’s edicts, as is your practice. Thank you.

Suppose a lame duck president with an approval rating of 25 percent were to demand that a Congress controlled by the opposite party pass legislation on behalf of a bunch of large corporations that no one much likes that would absolve those corporations of any liability for past illegal activities they may have participated in at that president’s request. Suppose further that the primary purpose and effect of this legislation is to immediately terminate existing court proceedings that threaten to shed some light on the nature and scope of these illegal activities. And finally, suppose that our hypothetical president is unwilling to provide the public or Congress (other than members of one committee) with any specific information regarding the activities that are to be immunized. Indeed, this hypothetical president won’t even confirm that the corporations being immunized ever assisted the government at all. Oh, and did I mention that this legislation is intensely unpopular among the political base of the party controlling Congress?

Given these facts, what are the odds that our hypothetical president would be able to convince Congress to give him the legislation he wants?

Had I not lived through the last few months, my answer to this question would be “no chance in hell.”

So, what is the mysterious force impelling our democratic senators toward this amazingly improbable act? Whom do they serve? It sure as hell isn’t us.

By wanting immunity are they not admitting illegal actions? Why are there even discussions. They broke the bloody law, helped spy on Americans then lied and hoped to cover it up. Immunity hell, prosecute.

Done, with comments about the “personhood” of corporations in all sorts of activities in this country. If they’re going to claim personhood, then they should go through the same thing I would have to go through if I were charged with wrongdoing. I’d have to show up in court and and answer those charges with proof that I didn’t do anything wrong.

So, what is the mysterious force impelling our democratic senators toward this amazingly improbable act? Whom do they serve? It sure as hell isn’t us.

what is mysterious is why so many people like around here, who are so incredibly well informed about the numerous perfidies and failures of the national party which assumes their allegiance, can still reflexively refuse to even consider the need to form an alternative to the stubbornly corporate authoritarian Donkey.

Thank you. It was a lot of work to pull this coalition together and a lot of the credit goes to Matt Stoller and Glenn Greenwald. It’s the first time we’ve tried to work with groups like this. I hope many others will follow.

I agree and also thank you very much, Jane, for all your efforts. This is how political movements are born.

Thank you. It was a lot of work to pull this coalition together and a lot of the credit goes to Matt Stoller and Glenn Greenwald. It’s the first time we’ve tried to work with groups like this. I hope many others will follow.

there’s just no way to thank you (and glenn and matt) enough. awesome effort… many, many thanks.

I signed, pointing out that it wasn’t such a difficult thing to figure out that it was wrong since there were Telcos that refused to go along with the lawbreaking so reward the law breakers at the expense of the law abiders who respected the Constitution.

So, what is the mysterious force impelling our democratic senators toward this amazingly improbable act? Whom do they serve? It sure as hell isn’t us.

what is mysterious is why so many people like around here, who are so incredibly well informed about the numerous perfidies and failures of the national party which assumes their allegiance, can still reflexively refuse to even consider the need to form an alternative to the stubbornly corporate authoritarian Donkey.

Sporkovat,

I understand your frustration. I think a third party would have to happen organically rather than on demand. Right now, we have a lot of ex-Republicans, ex-independents, ex-libertarians, etc who have joined the Progressive movement that is working to take the Democratic Party back from the neocon DLC. We haven’t failed to do that yet. We have made/are making inroads. I think right now, pragmatically, we feel we have to stay the course, so to speak. :)

Signed. With this comment:
“Senator, it stops here. No more enabling and empowering the worst President since Harding. No more dismantling the Republic. No more expediency over principle. We draw the line here, Senator, and take not one step back. Know that a bold stand will earn you the respect and support you will need to make it stick, and be of good cheer. We stop here, and retreat no more.”

So, what is the mysterious force impelling our democratic senators toward this amazingly improbable act? Whom do they serve? It sure as hell isn’t us.

what is mysterious is why so many people like around here, who are so incredibly well informed about the numerous perfidies and failures of the national party which assumes their allegiance, can still reflexively refuse to even consider the need to form an alternative to the stubbornly corporate authoritarian Donkey.

What’s in a name? Think of the people here as a hermit crab taking over the still-useful shell abandoned by a mollusk.

Just signed the petition.
Thanks Jane for all you do and for this petition. Every morning I come here to the Lake and read and learn from all of you. If ever Lady Liberty’s torch burned bright it does here at Firedoglake.

I think, interestingly, that ex-repubs, military families who have been hereditarily voting (R) for generations, ex-liberarians(?) … these folks did not come in with Least Worst baggage. Lets hope they do not get indoctrinated with it.

Reform of the (D) is mutually compatible, and most likely, enhanced by 3rd Party organizing efforts. Because you working on the inside can say ‘better shape up, or even more folks are gonna bolt’ and maybe get results.

what is mysterious is why so many people like around here, who are so incredibly well informed about the numerous perfidies and failures of the national party which assumes their allegiance, can still reflexively refuse to even consider the need to form an alternative to the stubbornly corporate authoritarian Donkey.

i might agree with you if there was a natural constituency for the neolib/”humanitarian” hawk faction of the dems. but there just isn’t…. imo, the party really is ours – it’s just that our “leaders” don’t want to let go.

what is mysterious is why so many people like around here, who are so incredibly well informed about the numerous perfidies and failures of the national party which assumes their allegiance, can still reflexively refuse to even consider the need to form an alternative to the stubbornly corporate authoritarian Donkey.

I think that all progressives need to form a new party and accept the progressive dems.

3 parties are healthier.

the dems are such an incredible disappointment it appears a continuing wasted effort. There are a few good dems, but the party is not a labor party, it is not a peace party, it is not a progressive party, it is a corporate one. FACE THE FACTS.

Reform of the (D) is mutually compatible, and most likely, enhanced by 3rd Party organizing efforts. Because you working on the inside can say ‘better shape up, or even more folks are gonna bolt’ and maybe get results.

i don’t disagree (especially regionally, like in MA) – and i don’t argue with people who support third party candidates. i’m just not motivated in that direction. but, for people who are – more power to them. i do consider them my natural allies (even more so than most dems in congress).

The more I hear from Dodd, the more I’m leaning towards supporting him. I wish he were covered more in the media so more people could hear what he has to say.

Often we assume “support” requires that we arrive at the point that we will cast a vote for a candidate. Only then will some of us contribute financial support. I know that is how I saw it historically.

I see things differently now. Though I have not yet conclusively decided to cast a vote for Dodd when the time comes, I have decided to send a contribution to his campaign. Its important to support his voice in the ongoing dialogue. Even if you support the better-heeled candiates (Hillary and Obama), I think one can make the case that you can ultimately “help” them more by keeping a candidate like Dodd in the spotlight. Look how focus on telcom immunity helped clarify Obama’s position.

I think that all progressives need to form a new party and accept the progressive dems.

3 parties are healthier.

the dems are such an incredible disappointment it appears a continuing wasted effort. There are a few good dems, but the party is not a labor party, it is not a peace party, it is not a progressive party, it is a corporate one. FACE THE FACTS.

Problem to me seems to be that 3 parties are suicidal for the left. The hope seems to be that the right splits; then there could be *4* parties, and of those, the one you would like to form could very well call the shots, be a plurality.

Yesterday I recognized the feeling that I have these days, that something may fall from the sky: the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember that feeling that the Soviet ICBMs could be re-entering the atmosphere at any moment?

I think that all progressives need to form a new party and accept the progressive dems.

3 parties are healthier.

the dems are such an incredible disappointment it appears a continuing wasted effort. There are a few good dems, but the party is not a labor party, it is not a peace party, it is not a progressive party, it is a corporate one. FACE THE FACTS.

Look, I agree in principle, and I really like the parliamentary democracies I see working in Europe, particularly the German model (which I should point out the USA helped create after WWII). But our political structure is oriented toward two parties, or else we would have long since had viable (meaning 10% or more) third parties in this country. As long as we have winner take all type of elections, that will continue. It may be productive to identify where we can start breaking down some of these structures that keep us locked into two party systems…

Harry and Hillary are the ones who threw Ned Lamont to the dogs. The struggle is between Reid, Pelosi, Clinton and Lieberman on one side. With Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich and Richardson on the other. Where do you stand?

Leave out the socialism… it’s been ruined. Same as Liberal… it’s toast.

There are lots of 3rd parties already out there. If we leave and all the progressive Yellow Dogs don’t, all it does is divide us. Better we should get all those “third” parties under one roof than to never be heard from again.

How come I don’t feel easy signing my real name to anything going to members of ‘my’ government these days?

Well, I have the same fear, but I look at it this way:

They already know. They have your legal, personal, professional, financial, medical, and service records, plus your phone, mail, email, and travel records. All electronic funds transfers. Your credit history. THEY HAVE IT ALL-so you might as well not worry about it. You-none of us-have any secrets any more, so hey! Might as well stand up and speak the truth.

Yeah, but they may not be following who has “liberal tendencies” closely enough for mere blog-surfing/posting to get you on some McCarthy-esque list. It is a real fear. On the other hand, I don’t think we’re remotely near the point where it’s anything to worry about yet.

I think that all progressives need to form a new party and accept the progressive dems.

3 parties are healthier.

the dems are such an incredible disappointment it appears a continuing wasted effort. There are a few good dems, but the party is not a labor party, it is not a peace party, it is not a progressive party, it is a corporate one. FACE THE FACTS.

Look, I agree in principle, and I really like the parliamentary democracies I see working in Europe, particularly the German model (which I should point out the USA helped create after WWII). But our political structure is oriented toward two parties, or else we would have long since had viable (meaning 10% or more) third parties in this country. As long as we have winner take all type of elections, that will continue. It may be productive to identify where we can start breaking down some of these structures that keep us locked into two party systems…

Excellent point.
I wonder if someone in some PoliSci dept somewhere has already worked out a transitional program.
How would you satisfy the “what’s in it for me?” question from factions and politicians and the entities which control same? Does parliamentarian procedure hold out the promise of small groups getting more of what they want (even if they don’t in fact get it all the time)?
I wonder if Ian Welsh has this kind of thing at his fingertips.

As a former federal prosecutor, I am appalled at the very idea of this bill. Not only do I oppose retroactive immunity for the reasons stated in the letter I am co-signing, I oppose prospective immunity and the constitutionally impossible concept of “basket” warrants.

The Constitution REQUIRES, doesn’t suggest– requires, that warrants be issued only upon probabale cause. Countless Supreme and lower court decisions have repeated the logically obvious notion that each warrant application is fact specific to it’s particular case.

Ergo, you cannot possibly have blanket or so called “basket” warrants issued without a case by case determination of the existance of probable cause.

I have worked both in government service and as a Indepedant Private Sector Inspector General (IPSIG) to enforce the law for almost my entire career.You would be hard pressed to find a more knee jerk “law and order” person than me. However,the bill subject to Senator Dodd’s “hold” does virtually nothing to assist or improve law enforcement and seriously errodes precious liberties.

What that henious bill DOES do, is set this nation on a course toward a police state. Not a slippery slope we want to on.

Excellent point.
I wonder if someone in some PoliSci dept somewhere has already worked out a transitional program.
How would you satisfy the “what’s in it for me?” question from factions and politicians and the entities which control same? Does parliamentarian procedure hold out the promise of small groups getting more of what they want (even if they don’t in fact get it all the time)?
I wonder if Ian Welsh has this kind of thing at his fingertips.

Yes, I’ve seen some published analyses, though I’ll have to go surfing to find them. What happens with the smaller third parties is that yes they can have some influence by forming coalitions with the larger groups (thereby increasing the coalitions vote bloc) in exchange for some of the things that they want on the table. It’s instructive to see how the Green party influences in Europe, even though they generally get around 15% more or less, not enough (certain not in a 2 way system) to run things, but certainly a sizeable percentage that should have some views aired. There are usually restrictions on the minimum percentage of the popular vote a party needs in order to get seats at the table — in Germany it’s 5% minimum, I think — so as to keep things manageable.

I had a lot of trouble “getting” the parliamentary system, but the more I learn the more fascinated I am. I think our system has many strengths as well, but I do think it could particularly stand some improvement to get out of this two party system that seems to lock us in, regardless of the party in charge…

Let’s get right to it and talk about how we stop retroactive telecommunications immunity from becoming law.

The way I see it, there are three ways to get this provision stripped from the final bill:
1.) The first step would be to make sure the idea doesn’t make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee — where it will be considered shortly.
If we can get it stripped there, it will have to be offered as an amendment to the overall bill where it will be a lot easier to get 41 votes against retroactive immunity than 41 to sustain my filibuster if necessary.
Take a moment and call up members of the committee, let me know what they said, and join others in tracking our progress in stopping the provision right there.http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

The other two ways:
2.) If retroactive immunity does make it out of committee, Senate leadership can honor the hold I’ve placed on any legislation that includes retroactive immunity.

3.) If leadership does not honor my hold, I remain committed to filibustering, and working to get the 41 votes necessary to maintain it.

This has the potential to be a long fight — so let’s build a solid foundation for our effort today by asking members of the Judiciary Committee to vote against any FISA bill that includes retroactive amnesty.

You should be ashamed that any American citizen feels a need to sign this petition in order to get your attention. Sadly, I do feel that way and I sincerely hope you will be able to see the righteousness of holding people accountable for their actions. Indeed, I suspect that is what your constituents expected when they voted for you. Were I in your shoes, I would feel ashamed.

Full immunity for undisclosed crimes? That’s a proposal one expects from a Catholic Church, worried it will have to sell its art treasures to pay for decades of sexual abuse. It is the rhetoric of predatory S&L executives, mortgage brokers and hedge fund tax cheats who walk off with billions while leaving average Americans to foot the bill. It is the cry of Gilded Age industrial barons, war profiteers of all ages and disgraced former presidents.

A prosecutor may grant immunity to a crime lord, but only conditionally, only in exchange for full disclosure and cooperation and only for some demonstrably greater good. Sen. Reid and his Senate colleagues, however, propose to publicly grant immunity while leaving undisclosed the underlying acts and what his colleagues receive in exchange for their grace and favor.

That would be a disgrace, an abandonment of the aspirations of the American experiment in democracy and a corrupt act. It would not make us safer. It would leave us less secure and less able to trust our government and those it employs to do its bidding. It would leave us less able to trust the Democratic Party to lead us out of the moral, legal, political and financial morass of the Bush presidency. For all our sakes, Sen. Reid, Don’t. Do. It.

how about a netroots wiki site- a progressive wikipedia type site? a community driven site that compiles all the data of all the issues, with links to blog posts, articles, videos, etc…

for example, valerie plame.. the entry would have the history and would refute all the bullshit talking points, and lay out the facts and all the links…

someone a while back posted all the speeches that al gore has given recently.. something like that would be perfect…

if we had one compilation of data, any issue that comes up can be researched and stored there, so that if you need to make a point in a letter to a representative, or newpaper, you have all the facts to draw from.